Bouwdata

On 18/5 WTCB is organising an information session on classification in BIM, one of the topics being ‘The deliverables produced by WG1 do not seem to correspond 100% to the needs of the sector. What are the needs of the sector?’. A recurring question in this working group related to a uniform bill of quantities. However, classification in BIM has nothing to do with bill of quantities. The latter are related to a specification system for tenders, something that will disappear in the higher BIM levels.

Let’s first take a look at the knowledge map of the Bouw Informatie Raad from the Netherlands regarding BIM Levels:

Level 1 is object-oriented, 2D or 3D, it does not matter, but information is linked to it but without integration between different disciplines or aspects. In other words, at level 1 there is no link between the model and, for example, calculation or planning software.

Level 2 allows things to be merged. Everyone still works in their own model, but they are merged into one view that is exchanged with third parties as a document. There are links to calculation and planning software, but all this is done in a single, centrally controlled organisation.

Level 3 is the fully integrated chain that extends over the entire lifecycle of a facility. This implies that people start communicating through the objects themselves and no longer share information by exchanging documents in which they have to browse to find their information each time themselves. At AWV, this is the OTL world! Tenders are a ‘Berlin wall’ between the designer world on the one hand and the contractor world on the other. Add to this the fact that in this whole spectacle, the client is a passive listener who usually loses the link with his/her own principles that he/she got approved in his/her board of directors.

A bill of quantities is a list containing quantities and unit prices that are checked monthly against what has been realised on site in order to draw up an invoice. That’s it in terms of knowledge sharing.

However, 95% of all projects that are currently realised are still done via a tender. So I do understand the need for an overarching measurement statement. But the question is, do we still need to invest our time in this, given that we all want to climb higher up the BIM ladder? In the UK, they have RIBA plan of work in which the life cycle of a facility is divided into 7 ‘Stages’, each of which has a fixed set of tasks. Important to know: since their first publication, procurement is not a ‘Stage’  but it is a task called ‘procurement’ that appears in all Stages. In other words, every party needed to finance, design, implement and maintain a facility is contracted in an appropriate manner. The NEC4 contracts have emerged in the UK for this purpose. These are nothing more than legal documents and tools to achieve this as conflict-free as possible.

‘Classification’ belongs in the BIM Level 3 – RIBA plan of work – NEC4 world.

Those who want to have their say on this topic should know ISO 12006-2:2015 – Building construction – Organisation of information about construction works – Part 2: Framework for classification like the back of their hand! If you still want to join the discussion but don’t know enough about the standard, send an email to pbo@bouwdata.net You will receive a free explanation including its interpretation by SfB, Uniclass and CCS with all their pros and cons.

The important thing to realise is that a ‘construction result’ goes in three directions, being : Work Results – provide the view of the result from the contracting industry e.g. groundwork, brickwork, plastering, etc.

AND HERE THERE IS A NEED FOR A PROJECT WIDE BUILDING SPECIFICATION SUCH AS SB250/260/270 AT AWV.

If you still want to organise a traditional tender, you can use the article numbers in these specifications as the basis for your measurement statement.

In the Netherlands, STABU2 has been around for years. In Flanders there is the VMSW but this specification is designed for social housing construction and not really suitable for parties wishing to set up other types of facilities.

Of the classification systems studied in WG1, only CCS covers this part of the ISO 12006-2 but, although it contains good things, it is incomplete and has a ‘crappy’ coding.

• Built Space – anyone who has done buyer assistance knows how important a ‘room by room’ is. A schedule of requirements also use it as a starting point because users of a facility simply do their thing in rooms!
• It is one of the system variables that should be used as anchor points throughout the life cycle by all parties involved.
• Complex > Entity > Element – the latter are the objects modelled in BIM to which all kinds of information is linked to share with cost controllers, facility managers, etc.
• IF A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT WIDE BUILDING SPECIFICATION1 EXISTED, IT WOULD SUFFICE FOR THE DESIGNERS TO WRITE A CONCISE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION PER PROJECT.
• This would avoid many failure costs that arise from today’s incorrect cut-and-paste work!

1 Something namely TUC Rail and AWV have. The above are three different worlds, each with its own knowledge needs and way of communicating. You cannot ask the owner or the designer or the contractor to take on the role of ‘interpreter’. Should people wonder what I actually do? Well I am the grey cog in the picture below that centrally manages and ‘interprets’ all administration and finances so that my projects run as free of conflicts as possible. Basically a belgian ‘common sense’ version of NEC4 but without the legal documents.

As a last item of this ‘shot across the bow’, I would like to point out that, when the debate on classification erupts, there are standards that cost controllers and facility managers use, being:

• NEN 2699 – Investment and operating costs of property – Terminology and classification
• NEN 2767 – Condition measurement

the Centre for Sustainable Building Management, managed by BuildWise (previously called the WTCB)  among others, has a very interesting course on offer for this purpose

Both refer to table 1 of the SfB for the classification of the elements.

In Scandinavia the SfB ended in the wastepaper basket, in Belgium nothing has happened to it since 2008 but in the Netherlands it has found a second breath where, by the end of 2019, the techniques section will have been completely rethought. The rest will undoubtedly follow.

If you classify the elements differently in a BIM model, be sure to provide a translation table to this ‘good old fashioned’ table 1 of the SfB because otherwise we, cost controllers and facility managers who want to work based on standards, will be in the shit. Thank you very much in advance!

#innovation #BouwData #5DBIM #meetstaat #classificatie

1) Iets wat o.a. TUC Rail en AWV hebben